Formulating a Legal Question The Case of Tinker v. Des Moines (1969)

Facts of the Case Students at public schools in Des Moines, Iowa, wore black arm bands to school to protest the Vietnam War. When ordered to remove the arms bands, they refused, were suspended from school, and challenged their suspension in court as a violation of free speech rights. In 1969 the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the students' challenge.

Formulating the Legal Question Formulating the legal question in a case is as much art as science. The art is finding the proper balance between too specific (fact bound) and too general (overbroad).

Examples of Poorly Formulated Questions Too Specific Too General

Too Specific “Did the Des Moines School District violate the students’ rights to wear black arm bands?” The formulation of the question is fact-bound. It applies only to this case. The answer is to the question is “yes,” but notice that answering the question decides the case without establishing any legal precedent or principle. Answering “yes” to this question only establishes that Des Moines loses and the students win.

Too General “May symbolic speech be punished?” The formulation of the question overbroad and would apply to countless other cases with very different material facts. It lacks anchoring in the real world. In the context of the Tinker case, the answer to the question is “no,” but it would be insane to interpret the court’s decision in Tinker to mean that symbolic speech can never be punished. What if the students had expressed their outrage over the war by burning their school?

Neither too specific nor too general A good statement of the question has to include the material facts at an appropriate level of generality.

What is a material fact? In legal circles “material” means relevant and significant to the decision to be made. In short, “material facts” are facts that make a legal difference.

Are these facts material? the setting is a public school the school is located in the United States the school is located in Iowa those expressing their opinions are students the arm bands were black the expression was not disruptive

How about these? the students were Quakers the students’ older sister was a college classmate of Craig Allin other symbolic expressions of opinion had been allowed

Material facts plus Constitution Combining the material facts with the specific portions of the Constitution alleged to be infringed we can state a question that is neither too specific nor too general.

A Well Formulated Question “May public school officials, consistent with the freedom of speech guaranteed by the 1st and 14th amendments, prohibit the symbolic expression by students of one particular opinion without evidence that such prohibition is necessary to avoid material and substantial interference with school work or discipline?” Court’s Answer: NO.

“But, how can I?” “How,” I hear you cry, “can I, a mere mortal without so much as a bachelor's degree, conjure up a question with all the artistry and precision exemplified in your most excellent example?”

Here’s How! 1 - Find the holding. 2 - Convert it to a question. 3 - Include material facts. 4 - Include Constitutional provisions. 5 - Fine tune for readability.

1 - Find the holding The holding is the court's answer to the Constitutional question in the context of particular material facts. You can convert the holding into a question.

The holding from Tinker “The prohibition of expression of one particular opinion, at least without evidence that it is necessary to avoid material and substantial interference with schoolwork or discipline, is not constitutionally permissible.”

2 - Convert it to a question “The prohibition of expression of one particular opinion, at least without evidence that it is necessary to avoid material and substantial interference with schoolwork or discipline, is not constitutionally permissible.”

2 - Convert it to a question “Is it constitutionally permissible to prohibit expression of one particular opinion when there is no evidence that it is necessary to avoid material and substantial interference with schoolwork or discipline?”

3 - Include material facts: What’s missing? “Is it constitutionally permissible to prohibit expression of one particular opinion when there is no evidence that it is necessary to avoid material and substantial interference with schoolwork or discipline?”

3 - Include material facts “Is it constitutionally permissible for public school officials to prohibit expression by students of one particular opinion when there is no evidence that it is necessary to avoid material and substantial interference with schoolwork or discipline?”

4 - Include Constitutional provisions “Is it constitutionally permissible for public school officials to prohibit expression by students of one particular opinion when there is no evidence that it is necessary to avoid material and substantial interference with schoolwork or discipline?”

4 - Include Constitutional provisions “Is it permissible given the freedom of speech guaranteed by the 1st and 14th Amendments for public school officials to prohibit expression by students of one particular opinion without evidence that it is necessary to avoid material and substantial interference with schoolwork or discipline?”

5 - Fine tune for readability “May public school officials, consistent with the freedom of speech guaranteed by the 1st and 14th amendments, prohibit the symbolic expression by students of one particular opinion without evidence that such prohibition is necessary to avoid material and substantial interference with school work or discipline?” (No.)

Caveat Some court decisions are a lot harder to analyze than this one. Sorry!